NationStates

thwuppos ar fin

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

The Corparation wrote:Not very.

Could you go into more detail on what makes it a bad design?

No, he can't. Because he has no idea what he's talking about.

CdeG has a reputation among US carrier fans because it's not lolhuge, and therefore not 'Murica enough.
It also had serious issues with its propellers when completed, but this is unrelated to its design as a carrier. The propellers were cast improperly, making them absolute crap. Then, of course, the company that made the propellers ceased to exist, so new ones had to be designed and made by another company. That takes time. So in the mean time, the propellers from the previous Clemenceau class were used, and they were not designed for the CdeG.

Dostanuot Loj wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Could you go into more detail on what makes it a bad design?

No, he can't. Because he has no idea what he's talking about.

CdeG has a reputation among US carrier fans because it's not lolhuge, and therefore not 'Murica enough.
It also had serious issues with its propellers when completed, but this is unrelated to its design as a carrier. The propellers were cast improperly, making them absolute crap. Then, of course, the company that made the propellers ceased to exist, so new ones had to be designed and made by another company. That takes time. So in the mean time, the propellers from the previous Clemenceau class were used, and they were not designed for the CdeG.

Thank you, I may have use for it then.

Gallia- wrote:(Image)

thwuppos ar fin

Any reason you used the AH-63 proposal instead of the Apache?

Atlantica wrote:

Gallia- wrote:(Image)

thwuppos ar fin

Any reason you used the AH-63 proposal instead of the Apache?

See? This is precisely what I asked in CYOE. Apache proper was is better. For a good reason too.

How difficult would it be to produce a STOVL aircraft with a lift fan, like the F-35, but with two engines?

The Corparation wrote:So apparently Trump has decided that EMALS is to complicated to understand and wants a return to steam catapults.

Now let me tell you, this digital stuff, it's all way too complicated. Everyone, they're all saying it's too complicated, you have to be a genius to figure this stuff out. Did anyone really have a problem with analog? Let me tell you, the analog stuff, it works. We have to go back to analog. Who knows? Maybe digital works, but it's too complicated, nobody understands the digital stuff.

-Celibrae- wrote:How difficult would it be to produce a STOVL aircraft with a lift fan, like the F-35, but with two engines?

If it had two lift fans, one for each engine, it could work. Two engines connected to one lift fan? I wouldn't try but it's theoretically possible. Because of how disc loading works I would try as hard as possible to just have one engine connected to one lift fan. Bigger plane? Just use a bigger engine. The F-35B is already pretty beefy as is and the F135 can be uprated to produce around 50,000+ ibs of thrust to give the aircraft room for future weight growth.

Atlantica wrote:

Gallia- wrote:(Image)

thwuppos ar fin

Any reason you used the AH-63 proposal instead of the Apache?

Cuter.

Would spoon him or let him spoon me.

AH-64 looks like a Lego.

Also it has direct design lineage with Cobra. Galla, being essentially an arsenal system, doesn't have the innovative thought patterns needed to diverge substantially from the past. Being an amalgamation of Bell and Sikorsky, it's not really going to make a lot of sense if Folkkopter suddenly started showing up with Hughes aircraft. Besides, the only good helicopter Hughes ever made was Osage and I don't think that's a substantial loss.

Sortie rate, maintenance costs; which is superior, a plane with two smaller engines, or one large one?

-Celibrae- wrote:Sortie rate, maintenance costs; which is superior, a plane with two smaller engines, or one large one?

Depends on way more than just the number of engines. Some engines, like the Soviet/Russian ones in many common fighter aircraft burnout and need overhauls at what can feel like embarrassing frequency.

North Arkana wrote:

-Celibrae- wrote:Sortie rate, maintenance costs; which is superior, a plane with two smaller engines, or one large one?

Depends on way more than just the number of engines. Some engines, like the Soviet/Russian ones in many common fighter aircraft burnout and need overhauls at what can feel like embarrassing frequency.

Let's say, two F-414s versus a single F-135?

-Celibrae- wrote:

North Arkana wrote:Depends on way more than just the number of engines. Some engines, like the Soviet/Russian ones in many common fighter aircraft burnout and need overhauls at what can feel like embarrassing frequency.

Let's say, two F-414s versus a single F-135?

If a single engine goes out on a 2 engined aircraft you still need to ground it for repairs. What the second engine gives you is a chance to get home if one goes out, which is why twin engine jets were preferred in the USN for so long.

North Arkana wrote:

-Celibrae- wrote:Sortie rate, maintenance costs; which is superior, a plane with two smaller engines, or one large one?

Depends on way more than just the number of engines. Some engines, like the Soviet/Russian ones in many common fighter aircraft burnout and need overhauls at what can feel like embarrassing frequency.

Actually from what I've read most Soviet engines are fairly bulletproof. Tumansky R-13 and Tumansky R-27 are well regarded, as are Lyulka AL-21 engines, the later of which proved resistant even to sand ingestion.

Usually two engines are better than one, but not it all cases. Depends on era and mission profile.

North Arkana wrote:

-Celibrae- wrote:
Let's say, two F-414s versus a single F-135?

If a single engine goes out on a 2 engined aircraft you still need to ground it for repairs. What the second engine gives you is a chance to get home if one goes out, which is why twin engine jets were preferred in the USN for so long.

True, but in terms of man hours for maintenance, I'd think a single engine design is superior to a twin engine design, assuming a uniform level of engine quality.

North Arkana wrote:

-Celibrae- wrote:
Let's say, two F-414s versus a single F-135?

If a single engine goes out on a 2 engined aircraft you still need to ground it for repairs. What the second engine gives you is a chance to get home if one goes out, which is why twin engine jets were preferred in the USN for so long.

What a dumb myth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F-8_Crusader
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_A-7_Corsair_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-4_Skyhawk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F9F_Panther
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-11_Tiger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-9_Cougar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_F3H_Demon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II

I would bet money that the majority of US Navy fighter-bombers in the '60s and '70s were single-engine, single-seat. The reason the F-4, A-5, and F-14 used twin engines was because engines in the 1960s and '70s were shit and planes were getting a lot heavier. TF30 could barely lift itself and F-14 was the heaviest fighter the US military operated. F-18C was nearly as big as F-4 Phantom and had a good 8-10,000 lbs on F-16C. Twin engines give you more thrust and let you lift more weight, which matters for fleet defense fighter-interceptors like F-4, F-111B, and F-14.

It also eventually mattered for VALs like F-18A/C which were asking a lot of the fighter-bomber role to consolidate the Crusader/Corsair into a single superplane.

-Celibrae- wrote:

North Arkana wrote:If a single engine goes out on a 2 engined aircraft you still need to ground it for repairs. What the second engine gives you is a chance to get home if one goes out, which is why twin engine jets were preferred in the USN for so long.

True, but in terms of man hours for maintenance, I'd think a single engine design is superior to a twin engine design, assuming a uniform level of engine quality.

One of the most important lessons anyone can learn in life is that there are no simple answers.

It depends on the engine and the aircraft. And the quantity of aircraft. And the number of hours flown. And the experience of the ground crews on working with the aircraft. And the spare parts availability. And requisitioned number of flight hours. And allotted maintenance man-hours. US Navy F-35C will probably require twice as many DMMH/FH as F-14 did when it was alive, FY18-FY19. About 50 versus about 25. This is comparable to Saab 35 Draken, on average.

DMMH/FH is a highly variable metric. One month or week might see a rotation of highly experienced NCOs with fresh maintainers, leading to a spike in hours required to perform routine tasks. Another month might see a good ground crew get flow and crush DMMH into the dirt. The average of those two might give you a really pedestrian sounding number at the end of the year.

DMMH also is a bathtub curve. New aircraft have a large DMMH:MA/ME/FH but it reduces at maturity, plateaus for a bit, and then goes up again as the airframes and components become very old.

Hrstrovokia wrote:I there any sense in following a rising scale of artillery strength, say providing Brigades with 122-130mm and then allocating 152-155mm at Division?

On a related note, {division dependant of course}, when determining the right amount of artillery firepower at the Regimental/Brigade level is it better to go with large mortars (120mm or larger) for lighter weight/lesser crew requirements/smaller range or standardized with your 152/155mm howitzer, but higher weight/more crew and larger logistical tail/longer range?

Initially, I went with a L119 105mm howitzer for infantry support in regimental artillery companies as part of my regiments TOE before deciding to switch to 155mm to standardize the 155mm howitzer throughout the divisional structure of my armed forces. Lately, I’ve decided 120mm regimental mortar companies would probably be a better investment, with the 155mm re-standardized at the divisional/corps/army level.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Okay, so I have been thinking up an alt-history timeline for a nation that I may start RP-ing with, and I want to know if this scenario seems possible.

In 1917, after Nicholas II abdicates, a regency council made up of members of the Imperial family and military officers takes power; instead of embarking on what would be the disastrous Kerensky offensive, they decide to remain on the defensive, and the Germans are never able to gather the men for the July Offensive in 1918, and are forced to sign an armistice. At the peace negotiations, it was decided to give what would become interwar Poland in our time to the Russian Empire; dismayed at the thought of being forced back into Russian servitude, the Poles revolt, quickly followed by the Balts. Desperate, the Russians ally themselves with the German freikorps in East Prussia, and, after a two year war, though the Russians lose Congress Poland, and can never take Galicia, they maintain control of the Baltic States, and Germany maintains control of Danzig.

snip...

UGH! You glossed over so much history just in the first few years after 1917 you made me want to drop a very large stack of thick history books on your head.

Just a few, but what happened with the following?

1. How was the February Revolution continued and expanded by the Russian Provisional Government {which seems the direction your Alt History is going}?
2. The Arrival of Lenin and his stirring the pot which would eventually lead to the October Revolution, the latter two things listed below and the rise of the USSR itself in 1922. This doesn’t give you much time to alter things and inertia being what it is.
3. Breakup of the German Empire, Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire
4. Allied Intervention into Russia
5. The Russian Civil War itself which as others have pointed out is going to be one hell of a herculean task to contain, subdue let alone prevent.
6. Polish–Soviet War and its direct predecessor the Polish–Ukrainian War {Poland didn’t just revolt by 1919 they had their own state and army}.
   
   Furthermore, if the Soviet’s do rise to power of some type to control Russian, Soviet Russian making an alliance with the Freikorps against the Second Polish Republic is unlikely.

Allanea wrote:Except this is untrue.

Russia was rapidly industrializing before WW1. Industrial output was growing, and so were wages, consumption, etc. This was set back by the war, revolution, and Civil War. It took the Soviets until the mid-1930s to return to 1914 production levels.

My source says Russian 1913 GDP (aka national income) levels weren't reached again until at least 1928.

United Earthlings wrote:

Hrstrovokia wrote:I there any sense in following a rising scale of artillery strength, say providing Brigades with 122-130mm and then allocating 152-155mm at Division?

On a related note, {division dependant of course}, when determining the right amount of artillery firepower at the Regimental/Brigade level is it better to go with large mortars (120mm or larger) for lighter weight/lesser crew requirements/smaller range or standardized with your 152/155mm howitzer, but higher weight/more crew and larger logistical tail/longer range?

Initially, I went with a L119 105mm howitzer for infantry support in regimental artillery companies as part of my regiments TOE before deciding to switch to 155mm to standardize the 155mm howitzer throughout the divisional structure of my armed forces. Lately, I’ve decided 120mm regimental mortar companies would probably be a better investment, with the 155mm re-standardized at the divisional/corps/army level.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Okay, so I have been thinking up an alt-history timeline for a nation that I may start RP-ing with, and I want to know if this scenario seems possible.

In 1917, after Nicholas II abdicates, a regency council made up of members of the Imperial family and military officers takes power; instead of embarking on what would be the disastrous Kerensky offensive, they decide to remain on the defensive, and the Germans are never able to gather the men for the July Offensive in 1918, and are forced to sign an armistice. At the peace negotiations, it was decided to give what would become interwar Poland in our time to the Russian Empire; dismayed at the thought of being forced back into Russian servitude, the Poles revolt, quickly followed by the Balts. Desperate, the Russians ally themselves with the German freikorps in East Prussia, and, after a two year war, though the Russians lose Congress Poland, and can never take Galicia, they maintain control of the Baltic States, and Germany maintains control of Danzig.

snip...

UGH! You glossed over so much history just in the first few years after 1917 you made me want to drop a very large stack of thick history books on your head.

Just a few, but what happened with the following?

1. How was the February Revolution continued and expanded by the Russian Provisional Government {which seems the direction your Alt History is going}?
2. The Arrival of Lenin and his stirring the pot which would eventually lead to the October Revolution, the latter two things listed below and the rise of the USSR itself in 1922. This doesn’t give you much time to alter things and inertia being what it is.
3. Breakup of the German Empire, Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire
4. Allied Intervention into Russia
5. The Russian Civil War itself which as others have pointed out is going to be one hell of a herculean task to contain, subdue let alone prevent.
6. Polish–Soviet War and its direct predecessor the Polish–Ukrainian War {Poland didn’t just revolt by 1919 they had their own state and army}.
   
   Furthermore, if the Soviet’s do rise to power of some type to control Russian, Soviet Russian making an alliance with the Freikorps against the Second Polish Republic is unlikely.

Don't get your knickers too much in a knot, it was meant to be a brief thing. And, no, in the alt history, the Soviets weren't going to rise to power, but I hadn't yet determined how that was going to happen, and still haven't, partly because I am working on another alt-history nation project.

As ideas through the book Guns Of August,it astounds me how Russia made it as long as it did.
They had the revolts for some pretty good reasons. All sorts of levels of secret policy, at pretty much every level, in combination with the heavy failure of administration/burueacracy (for multiple reason, the czars themselves one), I no longer am surprised that the white army burned farms.

North Arkana wrote:If a single engine goes out on a 2 engined aircraft you still need to ground it for repairs. What the second engine gives you is a chance to get home if one goes out, which is why twin engine jets were preferred in the USN for so long.

You're not landing on a carrier with an engine out on a two engine plane, at least not safely. Navy pilots land near the back of the power-required curve which means full throttle and relatively low horizontal speed. The throttle to the engines is used to control glide-slope angle while the elevator controls your velocity, essentially the reverse of what you do normally. With one engine out you need to use rudder to prevent the moment from yawing the plane with robs you of the rudder control you would need to land in any kind of crosswind. The point of keeping the engines near full throttle is so you can takeoff again if you miss the arresting wires, with on engine out you'd lack the necessary thrust to take off again and would crash into the ocean (BAD!). So if you lose the engine, regardless of the plane is single or twin engined, you're going to eject, period. The air force goons can land with engines out and/or or do glide landings when they're out of fuel. Navy guys aren't so lucky.

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:

North Arkana wrote:If a single engine goes out on a 2 engined aircraft you still need to ground it for repairs. What the second engine gives you is a chance to get home if one goes out, which is why twin engine jets were preferred in the USN for so long.

You're not landing on a carrier with an engine out on a two engine plane, at least not safely. Navy pilots land near the back of the power-required curve which means full throttle and relatively low horizontal speed. The throttle to the engines is used to control glide-slope angle while the elevator controls your velocity, essentially the reverse of what you do normally. With one engine out you need to use rudder to prevent the moment from yawing the plane with robs you of the rudder control you would need to land in any kind of crosswind. The point of keeping the engines near full throttle is so you can takeoff again if you miss the arresting wires, with on engine out you'd lack the necessary thrust to take off again and would crash into the ocean (BAD!). So if you lose the engine, regardless of the plane is single or twin engined, you're going to eject, period. The air force goons can land with engines out and/or or do glide landings when they're out of fuel. Navy guys aren't so lucky.

I was more referring to getting near the carrier and ditching.

North Arkana wrote:I was more referring to getting near the carrier and ditching.

With the double-engine plane after you correct the yawing moment with the rudder you would probably shut the other engine off and glide at your L/D max as close the carrier a possible before ejecting. Unless you're in a four engine plane like a 747 running with an engine out is pretty dangerous and very much undesirable. So in both cases the end result would pretty much be the same.

North Arkana wrote:

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:
You're not landing on a carrier with an engine out on a two engine plane, at least not safely. Navy pilots land near the back of the power-required curve which means full throttle and relatively low horizontal speed. The throttle to the engines is used to control glide-slope angle while the elevator controls your velocity, essentially the reverse of what you do normally. With one engine out you need to use rudder to prevent the moment from yawing the plane with robs you of the rudder control you would need to land in any kind of crosswind. The point of keeping the engines near full throttle is so you can takeoff again if you miss the arresting wires, with on engine out you'd lack the necessary thrust to take off again and would crash into the ocean (BAD!). So if you lose the engine, regardless of the plane is single or twin engined, you're going to eject, period. The air force goons can land with engines out and/or or do glide landings when they're out of fuel. Navy guys aren't so lucky.

I was more referring to getting near the carrier and ditching.

Asymmetric thrust is bad.

Single engine out in a two engine plane is actually much more dangerous (in terms of accidents and fatalities) than losing the engine is a single engine plane. Generally the only aircraft where flying with an engine out is safe are aircraft where this feature was designed in from the start, usually four engine airliners or airlifters which are designed with the ability to takeoff, cruise, and land with an engine failure.

This is what an engine loss in a twin engine fighter looks like. Notice how the aircraft immediately starts to yaw until the nose pushes over and drops the aircraft. At low altitude where the pilot doesn't have the cushion to correct with rudder and/or shut off the other engine and glide the only option is to immediately eject. If this happened on a carrier at takeoff or landing the aircraft would crash into the ocean. So with regards to single vs twin engine fighters on a carrier there really is no safety or operational advantage to the twin engine aircraft.

Is there any sense to use a modern Universal/Windsor Carriers type thing for light infantry. They could carry light infantry quickly over almost anything and anywhere be air transportable and still have certain carriers with TOW rockets to kill tanks or 20mm guns to support infantry.

I seen the Weasle tankette but they don't carry troops like an universal carrier.

The Technocratic Syndicalists wrote:Single engine out in a two engine plane is actually much more dangerous (in terms of accidents and fatalities) than losing the engine is a single engine plane. Generally the only aircraft where flying with an engine out is safe are aircraft where this feature was designed in from the start, usually four engine airliners or airlifters which are designed with the ability to takeoff, cruise, and land with an engine failure.

This is what an engine loss in a twin engine fighter looks like. Notice how the aircraft immediately starts to yaw until the nose pushes over and drops the aircraft. At low altitude where the pilot doesn't have the cushion to correct with rudder and/or shut off the other engine and glide the only option is to immediately eject. If this happened on a carrier at takeoff or landing the aircraft would crash into the ocean. So with regards to single vs twin engine fighters on a carrier there really is no safety or operational advantage to the twin engine aircraft.

F-18 has a puny yaw control.

S-3 don't give a fuck.